[lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 10 March 2017 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93C212940A; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:47:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.47.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148916442967.6864.11561838065992971408.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:47:09 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/YLxpp5b3R57Z1IcDCnOfPzPVqbo>
Cc: dromasca@gmail.com, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lmap-yang@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
Subject: [lmap] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-l?= =?utf-8?q?map-yang-11=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:47:09 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


This draft does not specify a bootstrapping process (see RFC 7594 5.1. 
Bootstrapping Process) and says:
"Pre-Configuration Information: This is not modeled explicitly since
bootstrapping information is outside the scope of this data model."
So when and where and how will this be specified?


Also it is not clear when and how to perform configuration actions. To be
a fully function protocol more guidance is needed. Not sure if that is
even the intention of this document but I don't see any other documents
that serves this purpose in the lmap queue. (And the milesstones are not
up to date and don't indicate with document maps to which milestone.)